My life boils down to this moment. I refresh my emails. My heart stops. Then, I see the news: “Thank you for applying …”
You know the rest. I thought getting rejected was entirely my fault, until some friends hinted that everything was rigged from the beginning because … I’m Asian. That proposition is disheartening and, indeed, reveals the great offense many applicants feel. It doesn’t help that the evidence is clear on how affirmative action has disadvantaged Asian-Americans, shining a spotlight on the contradictions of our current policies and precedents.
Harvard Professor Jeannie Suk Gerson recounts how her peers believed she had more personality and sociability than “other” Asians, exposing their belief that most Asians are bland. The current lawsuit against Harvard’s treatment of Asians fittingly draws parallels with its policy nearly a century ago undermining Jews by adding nonacademic standards Jews supposedly lacked. Today, Harvard still measures applicants on traits like “positive personality, likability, courage, kindness, and being widely respected.”
In a 2013 report, Harvard conceded that Asian-Americans would skyrocket from just 19 to 43 percent of their student body based solely on academics and test scores. However, adding athletes and donors made whites increase, and Asians drop dramatically to 31 percent. Including extracurricular activities and personality ratings, Asians dropped to 26 percent, leading some to wonder if Harvard is implying Asians lack personality.
Though one would think grades and tests are the saving grace of Asian-Americans, even that assumption is undermined. A Princeton study demonstrated that on the old SAT (2400 points max) Asian applicants needed 140 points more than whites, 270 more than Hispanics, and 450 more than Blacks to be considered equal in rankings (other factors held constant).
Another 2005 Princeton study likened being Asian to a loss of 50 SAT points, while a separate study claimed Black students with an ACT score of 27 had the same likelihood of admission as a white student with a 30.8 or 31.
Nonetheless, brute disparities are not enough to establish discrimination. Hard quantitative variables miss the softer variables of the admissions process like recommendation letters or personal statements. The search for discrimination is almost like chasing the wind since “holistic” review can literally mean anything.
But the visceral stories of other Asian students elucidates the problem. Though many are sympathetic to the mission of affirmative action, they feel as if they have been unfairly penalized. These numbers are at least suggestive of underlying problems.
That problem can be traced back to Asian-American history. Asians have faced discrimination and mistreatment in America – from lynching, stereotyping, and more. The affirmative action that emerged out of the civil rights movement originally included Asians, until colleges shifted. The University of California, for example, began to remove protections for Asian-Americans on the grounds that Asians didn’t need them. Internal investigations at Stanford and Brown University unearthed that Asian-American applicants were, in fact, treated unfairly.
Regardless of what one believes regarding affirmative action, Asian-Americans have reason to be suspicious. While diversity is a noble goal, one must ask at what price are we willing to pursue it. Furthermore, are there any reasonable guidelines for realizing an ideal diversity outcome?
If we are interested in diversity, then let it be for all minorities. If we are interested in the truth, then let us look at all the facts. The facts are clear, affirmative action, as of now, is broken.
